What happened to curing cancer or saving the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The students we know graduating from college have jobs in business, consulting, IB, and a few in engineering. Any more interesting new grad jobs that you know of?

If you don't think that engineers and businesspeople have done an extraordinary amount that improved the lives of hundreds of millions of years (including curing cancer), you've missed the past 250 years of western history, and probably did not study that either. The difference between them and the people whose primary intent is to save the world is that they have other intentions or objectives. But ultimately, it is impact, not intention or purity of heart, that matters.

All we've seen over the last 30 years among youth is a proliferation of nonprofit efforts designed to save the world, all geared to boosting college admissions and premised on the unwillingness of parents to tell their kids about how the world and progress works. It's not surprising that these kids are now in their 30s and 40s and wonder what the hell happened. The answer is that a lot of them need to adjust their expectations about their own lives and realize that they spent a lot of time on things that will never have impact.

[Anonymous]

We are less than two years into the Trump poop show. You all asked for this. Because for some reason Kamala was the most horrible person on earth. Not president of her fan club, but she would have maintained some sense of normalcy and decency. Rather than blowing up this great American experiment. Which didn't need blowing up. Definitely needed some tweaking. But not this huge destruction of everything that was good in this country.

But keep watching Fox News for your daily dose of propaganda and thinking everything is hunky dory and Trump is a wonderful man whose sole purpose is to help you and not to line his pockets.

And the first person who replies with "TDS" or whatever else is proving my point and has an IQ of 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been a teacher for 30 years. My kids are in finance, or heading there. They saw me work my ass off and struggle and they want a different path. I am thrilled.

Same. I’m a teacher and DH isn’t but is in a different field and works really hard. Our kids constantly say they don’t want to be like us and want high paying jobs. They don’t care if they love work but want to make money to do the things they do love. We fully support that. I would never want either of mine to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, it’s some nepo babies who still want to change the world for good. Strivers’ kids just want to be rich.

I almost vomited. You’re such an ugly person.

You vomit because it’s true.

Kids who don’t have to worry about money are free to worry and be creative about solving problems. They are the ones that can afford to be wrong and to fail.

Those that don’t have a safety net are going take the safe route to money and security.

The ugliness is the system, not the OP for pointing it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You saw what they did to the NIH... why bother?

That will go back at some point when these corrupt incompetent men leave the White House.

I saw a documentary on the Thalidomide drug that was developed by ex-Nazi war criminals in the 1950s that helped pregnant women with nausea. It turned out to cause horrific birth defects where babies were born with no legs or arms or shortened misshapen arms. This started in Germany, it was then sold to England and Canada. The Nazi company knew of the side effect but kept it quiet because they were getting very rich.

Thanks to Dr. Frances Kelsey from the FDA, Thalidomide was never approved in the US.
In 1960, Dr. Kelsey halted the drug's approval process, citing inadequate safety data, which averted a major public health tragedy in the United States. She faced enormous pressure from the drug company and lobbyists along with bribes and death threats. She stayed strong.

Trump has gutted the FDA. Without hesitation thalidomide would be approved by Trump and he would have fired the doctors. We need doctors like Dr. Kelsey and scientists who will stay true. Young people have to bother. Plus if all anyone is doing is moving money around our economy will be shattered.

Saying "it will come back" does not give people comfort that they can build a successful and secure stable life for themselves and their family. The security of a lot of those fed and fed-adjacent or funded jobs is gone. Yes that impacts the next generation as well.

I am in a "passion" field and I hate it. The swings are awful. I'm depressed and I can't unplug from tht regular news or the nonstop news related to my area. I wish I worked on something I didn't care about -- accounting?? -- and the job was just a job and not part of the bigger political mess.

This with the scarcity of the academic job market makes most natural science degrees useless.

[Anonymous]

They want a house, ability to travel, freedom to live. It’s that simple. There are very few high paying jobs that allow independence outside of business/sales, law and medicine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

[Anonymous]

Our kids all are on the “cure cancer” path. Trump and R research slashing will probably affect their path along the way. It’s hard to do good with the current administration focusing on grift and vengeance.

It’s sad to see so many bright kids go ibto finance.

[Anonymous]

It is a shame that the bright kids aren’t aiming to change the system and rather just feed it

But that’s capitalism. It rewards the production of money; not of ideas, sustainability, care, etc.

[Anonymous]

Friend's son is doing some really interesting research on ALS with his dual MD/PhD. The reality is, this family is extremely wealthy and he can afford to have been in school for as long as he has and now work in an underpaid research setting. Most can't afford to go the path he has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

I think you seriously underestimate how much of the foundational work is done on NIH funding. It isn't just 'some early research.' It's ALL of the mechanistic details and generally most of the preclinical work too. Even when companies get involved with a research compound or clinical grade compound in-hand, they aren't doing that type of research themselves. They're either contracting out to CROs, or developing CRADAs with research institutions.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that pharma/industry invests incredible money to get drugs to market. But that relies on scientists to lay a firm foundation of why and how to use the drug. And when that step is skipped, pharma is also at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a shame that the bright kids aren’t aiming to change the system and rather just feed it

But that’s capitalism. It rewards the production of money; not of ideas, sustainability, care, etc.

Why do you expect the bright kids to do it? Why don’t you do it yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

I think you seriously underestimate how much of the foundational work is done on NIH funding. It isn't just 'some early research.' It's ALL of the mechanistic details and generally most of the preclinical work too. Even when companies get involved with a research compound or clinical grade compound in-hand, they aren't doing that type of research themselves. They're either contracting out to CROs, or developing CRADAs with research institutions.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that pharma/industry invests incredible money to get drugs to market. But that relies on scientists to lay a firm foundation of why and how to use the drug. And when that step is skipped, pharma is also at risk.

I'm a patent attorney with a PhD in chemistry and have spent years of my life reading lab notebooks chronicling the discovery of medicines. Yes, there is work done in academic and government labs, but it's not even close to a majority. Lots and lots of science on mechanisms and pathways is done in industry too. Most oncology drug preclinical work is done by industry, with it being an exception if a drug makes it that far in a govt lab.

I'm 100% supportive of funding science and think that funding is critically important. I just get really annoyed at the vilification of big pharma when they are making groundbreaking progress towards treating cancer more effectively, and hopefully finding cures. If a young person wants to work on curing cancer, they should absolutely consider working in pharma.

[Anonymous]

My sister was literally doing lung cancer research and her job got DOGEd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

I think you seriously underestimate how much of the foundational work is done on NIH funding. It isn't just 'some early research.' It's ALL of the mechanistic details and generally most of the preclinical work too. Even when companies get involved with a research compound or clinical grade compound in-hand, they aren't doing that type of research themselves. They're either contracting out to CROs, or developing CRADAs with research institutions.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that pharma/industry invests incredible money to get drugs to market. But that relies on scientists to lay a firm foundation of why and how to use the drug. And when that step is skipped, pharma is also at risk.

I'm a patent attorney with a PhD in chemistry and have spent years of my life reading lab notebooks chronicling the discovery of medicines. Yes, there is work done in academic and government labs, but it's not even close to a majority. Lots and lots of science on mechanisms and pathways is done in industry too. Most oncology drug preclinical work is done by industry, with it being an exception if a drug makes it that far in a govt lab.

I'm 100% supportive of funding science and think that funding is critically important. I just get really annoyed at the vilification of big pharma when they are making groundbreaking progress towards treating cancer more effectively, and hopefully finding cures. If a young person wants to work on curing cancer, they should absolutely consider working in pharma.

Sorry, didn't think I was villifying pharma. I'm a PI, and plenty of my students and postdocs go on to industry jobs and I actively support them in taking that path. It's possible that we're talking about two different things here: the discovery of medicine (the actual drug that goes into patients) is very different that the solid rationale for making and delivering that drug. We need the latter to take place before pharma will invest in the former. One takes place predominantly in industry (with a few notable chemistry laboratories, see: Ras-targeting drugs), and the other predominantly takes place in basic research centers. This is not a controversial take at all.